About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7
with our government's top national security priority, which is the lawful effective and humane interrogation of this subject for the purposes of gathering intelligence. the boston attacks were clearly inspired by the violent ideology of transnationallist islamist terrorism. so we need to learn everything we can about what foreign terrorists or terrorist groups the suspect and his brother might have associated with, whether they were part of additional plots to attack our nation, and what other relevant information the suspect may possess that could prevent future attacks against the united states or our interests. i think we need to delve further into this whole issue of the education that some people who are motivated by these base ideologies obtain over the internet and the effect that it's having. we should at least know about that. our civilian justice system offers a responsible option for striking this balance with american citizens. it allows the justice department to delay reading a suspect his miranda rights if doing so is in the interest of -- quote -- "public safety.
-- there are laws that say you cannot set up shop there unless you can prove your self-sufficient economically or you're not going to take a job from a french person. host: let's look a little bit more at "the hill" to find out what we know about the suspects in the boston bombing attacks. the bombing was allegedly carried out by chechens who immigrated to the united states. for a little bit of news, the latest on the suspect in the boston bombings, cnn reports that the surviving suspect has told investigators that his older brother, not any international terrorist group, asked her mind of the deadly cnn is attributing that to a government source. pulmonary interviews with dzhokhar tsarnaev indicate that the two brothers had the classification of self- radicalized jihadists. has conveyed -- dzhokhar tsarnaev has conveyed to investigators that his brother's motivation was jihaa jihadist p. here is the "washington post" -- the two brothers suspected of bombing the boston marathon appeared to be motivated by their religious faith, but do not appear to be connected to any terrorist group. we are a
following the interview. if this were to become law, how department in sure they're adequately screen for national security threats? permit togulations confer with the state department to verify the veracity of an applicant's claim. to what extent do they use the authority? are other barriers that prevent this between the agency's? encies? improved theeatly information available from the get go in terms of what data bases are a check box. that source from the beginning when we collect this. with respect to the state department, we have very could relations with the state area which is the credible fear. >> you will check whether that is an accurate statement. >> yes. we do not take it as being valued. bille concern is that this truncates the process. i would just ask you to look at that. student visao the fraud. this is something i have been interested in since 9/11 when there was a lot of it in the country. schools goingked at back to 2008, most of in 2011. eight of the 14 schools are in my state where there are very suspicious activities going on. have 10,500 schools approved by dhs
only be tried in federal court. he's never eligible for military commissions. a first year law student could convict this person. what i'm worried about is what does he know about future attacks? he's telling us that his brother was the bad guy, he's sort of just along for the ride. they had no international connections. guess what, he's down-playing his involvement. what i am suggesting is that we use the national security legal system where we can interview him without a lawyer to gather intelligence to prevent a future attack, rather than having to negotiate through his lawyer to get any information. jenna: but, if i could, senator, there seems to be a lot of discrepancy about some of the information come being out about this investigation. >> right. jenna: we've all seen it, you know, played out on the news and otherwise. i would like to drill down a little bit into an even change you just had about the boston terror attacks with the s*epbg o secretary of home land security january elt napolitano. we showed an older brother, this tkhaou owe, that is secretary napolitano. we just sh
the safeguards around the facilities. i was successful in putting those laws on the books that protect us today. >> all right, sir. thank you. rebuttal? >> that is not what your record indicates, ed. when you look at the port security bill you voted no. when you look at the homeland security bill, i had $158 million in an amendment to fund real security. tonight, we're hearing about threats on rail security coming in from canada, you voted no on that. you voted no for funding for homeland security. some of these votes there are 415 members, both sides are voting yes and you are voting no. >> you mentioned a couple. go ahead mr. markey. >> i am the author of the legislation to mare sure that rail security is more secure in our country. i'm the author of the legislation that moves towards enensuring that chemical plants, for example, are more protected within our country. look it, on our two records, i think we both try our best to work hard. my priorities wound up being the law of the united states in honor to protect the security of our country. >> go ahead. >> you voted no. you voted no on the
the process is under way. >> juliette, from a law enforcement standpoint, do you think it was the right decision to try him in civilian court? >> absolutely. like what jeff said, there is just really no debate about this. it's more of a political debate. for one, the law doesn't even cover him because he's a u.s. citizen. but from a law enforcement national security perspective, what better way to minimize the impact of terrorists than to treat them like criminals. that's what they are. if you make them into sort of a bigger deal than he is or anyone is, it sort of gives them a relevance we actually don't want to. so a lot of people in national security and counterterrorism love this idea. not only because of the legal underpinnings behind it but also because it sort of says to anyone who would harm us, you're just a criminal. >> there has also been a lot of successful prosecutions of terrorist suspects in criminal court. >> you can learn a lot of evidence from this. when i first got into this field it was right after the africa bombings, african embassy bombings in '98, and some of the
by will you -- must include the contributions of the transgendered? by law. you will have to have pages on transgendered contributions. people who were crossed over sex, or dressed in the other sex. clothing. isn't that absurd? isn't that totalitarian? i thought the purpose of the textbook was to tell the truth, not make groups feel good. but as i point out in the book, leftism is overwhelmingly rooted in feelings. >> host: dennis prager is the author. "still the best hope" is the name of his recent best seller. louis from florida, you're on the air. you're talking with dennis prager. >> caller: i'd like to ask mr. prayinger and his ilk what he just said about truth, why should people believe the bible when that's the biggest novel ever written? who believes the earth is 5,000 years old? how can you follow a book that tells you the world is 5,000 years old and hisclass commentary about the christian schools and the seminary, how does he say something like that and he wants to be honest? i know this man is a right winger, and he wouldn't fifth credit to anybody, but my main question is,
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7